Criticizing Pope John Paul II

That Pope John Paul II should get a barrage of criticism from modernists is only to be expected. But he also comes in for unsparing criticism from so-called traditionalists; and that is what I want to discuss here.

It is not that they recognize his great achievements, but think that an occasional statement or practical decision is wrong. The people I am referring to seem to go through papal statements in search of errors and scrutinize the Pope’s activities for inappropriate or imprudent actions.

Here is a man who has fearlessly and devotedly promoted the truth for almost a quarter of a century as Vicar of Christ, who despite illnesses in recent years that would have forced most people into retirement has kept up a pace most fit individuals half his age would find daunting. He draws crowds of millions; he is listened to by young people all over the world. He is today’s great outstanding moral teacher, and seen as such by multitudes, including those of other faiths or none.

Ignoring all this, the critics I am speaking of look for anything they can regard as a weakness or error, then publicly condemn it. Even if they were right about the matters complained of, they would be wrong in the lack of balance shown. But that lack of balance should alert us to the bias with which they approach John Paul, and warn us that their alleged statements of fact may be nothing of the sort.

Take criticisms of the gathering of religions at Assisi, organized by the Pope. Horror is expressed at his alleged encouragement of Hindus, Buddhists, and others to pray to pagan gods. But that is not what he did. Certainly he encouraged them to pray. God is open to all sincere prayer, even though those praying may have confused and erroneous notions of who God is. Nor did the Pope join in prayer with them, as is sometimes insinuated. The groups prayed separately.

John Paul is also charged with contradicting his Predecessors on the place of St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy. He is supposed to have implied, in his encyclical Faith and Reason (n. 49), that the Church has no preferred philosophy. This would contradict previous Popes, including Pius XI’s statement in Studiorum Ducem, that "as innumerable documents of every kind attest, the Church has adopted his [St.
Thomas’] philosophy as her own" (AAS 15 [1923], 314).

In fact, John Paul’s sentence is badly translated in the English version of Faith and Reason. The encyclical highly praises St. Thomas in several places, including an endorsement of Leo XIII’s "insistence upon the incomparable value of the philosophy of St. Thomas" (n. 57).

The Pope is also taken to task for saying, in his general audience of July 28, 1999, that Hell is not a place. But what he actually said is that Hell is "more than a place." (This is pointed out in a "Faith Fact" published by Catholics United for the Faith, and quoted by James Drummey in his Wanderer column, Catholic Replies.) The English translation of the Pope’s address rendered the Italian as "rather than a place," instead of the accurate "more than a place."

Even had he said it is not a place, surely he should be understood to be highlighting what it is essentially (and the same applies to his similar remarks about Heaven). Instead the carping critics seize on sentences without regard for the context, don’t trouble to check the original, then complain that the Pope is wrong.

What is the right approach if the Pope seems to be wrong? Well, first one must get the facts straight. In the case of a happening, such as the Assisi meetings of religions, what did he actually do and say? What was the intention of the gathering? Regarding statements that seem inaccurate, is the fault in the translation? Does the context throw light on the meaning?

Secondly, a clear distinction must be made between doctrine and practices. The influence of the Holy Spirit in preventing the Pope from teaching error in faith or morals is in a different category from the help given him in practical decisions. There is no guarantee that he will act in the best way when dealing with administrative matters or in practical decisions relating to ecumenical activities or in dealing with dissident theologians. In these areas mistakes may occur due to inadequate information, personal psychological weaknesses of the Pope, and other causes.

A good example, in my opinion, is the way Paul VI handled (or failed to handle) the controversy about contraception. There was never any possibility of the traditional doctrine being reversed, yet Paul VI took several years to make his definitive statement, and in the meantime left the impression that a change might be imminent. After his clear and beautiful teaching in Humanae Vitae, he rarely referred to the matter again in the remaining ten years of his pontificate, and failed to act decisively against the multitude of dissenters who rebelled against him.

Should we, then, feel free to criticize the Pope in his practical procedures regarding such things as ecumenical approaches or tolerance of unorthodox theologians? While these matters are clearly in a different category from teachings on faith and morals, and don’t require the same allegiance from us, there is need for great caution before disagreeing.

A point to remember (and which so-called traditionalists often ignore) is that John Paul may be right and his Predecessors wrong on a particular issue of this kind. Also, practical measures that worked in the past may not be effective now because of changed circumstances or a change in the general outlook. Perhaps this would apply in the question of whether the Church should have an index of banned books; possibly it was prudent in the past but would be so blatantly flouted today that it would do more harm than good.

Several factors need to be kept in mind if we are inclined to think we are right and John Paul II is wrong. One is his vast knowledge, derived from a lifetime of varied experiences, including years under Nazism and then Marxism. As Pope he has met and talked to more people, and of more diverse views, than almost anyone else on earth. He has better sources of information than we have.

A second consideration is his evident holiness. While we can’t see into another person’s soul, there is every indication that John Paul is a saint. The spiritual insight of a saint, endowed as he is with supernatural virtue in a high degree and with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, gives him a prudence and wisdom far exceeding what most of us are capable of.

Also, he has the grace of state proper to his high office as Vicar of Christ. This is a divine help appropriate to his vocation. We can be confident, in view of his holiness, that he will not resist that grace.

Putting all that together — almost unparalleled experience, saintly wisdom, a ready response to the grace of state offered him by God — we should be extremely reluctant to suppose we know better than he does what Christ wants for His Church.

There is also the need for us to avoid scandal. Those who complain about the alleged scandal given by the Pope with the Assisi gathering of religions should ask themselves whether they give scandal with their readiness to condemn his actions. Will this stance lead other people to question papal authority? Will it tend to make them skeptical about pronouncements from Rome? Will it encourage them to see Vatican II as a major disaster? Will it weaken the allegiance of young people to the Church?

Finally, the critics I am speaking of should ask themselves whether they, not the Pope, have a warped view. It is so easy for justified concern about the aberrations in Catholic affairs to cause an overreaction, with suspicion of quite legitimate changes. It must never be forgotten that Satan, who loves to provoke division, can appear as an angel of light and lead us astray.

(John Young is a graduate of the Aquinas Academy in Sydney, Australia, and has taught philosophy at the Vincentian Seminary in Eastwood, Australia. He is a frequent contributor to The Wanderer on theological issues.)

This is a ridiculous argument, phony on the surface. Nobody questions the fact that Christ died for all. We are opposing the use of "for all" because Christ didn't say "for all", he said "for many." Do you think Christ didn't know that his sacrifice would be for all, but that only SOME would actually achieve salvation? Do you think Matthew and Mark mistook his meaning?

If the modernists want to use "for all", they should be honest enough to admit that Christ didn't use these words and remove the claim he did from the text of the Novus Ordo. Keeping it in and claiming he said it, is a lie. It is a falsehood. It is misleading. It is politically correct, but factually dishonest. And it pushes a false, politically-correct doctrine that the Church has never taught. It has always taught Christ died for all. But it has also taught that despite this, only some of us would have faith enough in him to be saved.

Moreover, the continual false claim that the Hebrew and the Aramaic tongues used "many" to mean "all" is as fake as a three dollar bill. Do you think for two thousand years the Church made a huge mistake in translating the Gospels which only modernists in their infinite wisdom were able to finally discern? What is this except the same old hubris this gang of church-wreckers and sycretists exposes whenever they lay their apostate hands on a traditional Catholic teaching? No wonder the Church is presently in a state of collapse. It is ruled by people who are inveterately dishonest, wrong-headed, and in open opposition to past Church teachings. As a consequence the Church is less truthful and less faithful and less influential than any time in modern history. What we get instead is this liberal mush, feel-good Princess Diana-type optimism that is not borne-out by the Gospels.

So yes, Christ died for all--but He knew not all would achieve salvation and it would be sobering and wise for us to realize this truth and stop patting ourselves on the back and lying to ourselves, pretending he said what he never said.

I also suspect that if JC Himself knocked on their door and explained it all for them, they would (politely, I hope) advise him that disobedience is REQUIRED.

How to Rescue Someone from the Influence of the SSPX

NOTICE: If you are in a situation where you want to rescue someone from the influence of the SSPX, we strongly urge you to read this whole document before trying any rescue procedures, so that you get an overall understanding of what you are up against.

LOL! From your web site How to rescue Someone from the Influence of the SSPX:

Strategy #2. Try to get the SSPX supporter to see the unfairness of spending so much energy pointing to someone's mistakes, and never recognizing the good they have done.

SSPX supporters spend great amounts of energy pointing out the Pope's mistakes. But they also refuse to recognize whenever the Pope does something right. It is not fair to spend all your time pointing out the Pope's mistakes, and never giving him credit for doing good things. This reveals a real prejudice against the Pope, which can lead to a mindset in which you decide to start your own church, since the Pope isn't doing a good enough job.

Can someone who is free from the influence of the SSPX please list all of the good things done by John Paul II?

Please note, answers regarding his travels, ecumenism, world youth day and rock concerts are not acceptable.

lol on the website. That's pretty funny. I could pattern a website of my own after this, and enjoy loads of success:

How to Rescue Someone from the Influence of the Postconciliarism

(Also known as Evangelization or Defending the Faith)

NOTICE: If you are in a situation where you want to rescue someone from the influence of the Post Conciliar NeoChurch, we strongly urge you to read this whole document before trying any rescue procedures, so that you get an overall understanding of what you are up against.

DISCLAIMER: Although we not have received letters from complacent and lukewarm friends and relatives who have merely alluded to having successfully prayed and sacrificed for Post Conciliar NeoChurch supporters, please understand that any attempt to rescue someone from a mind control situation involves risks. Depending on your particular circumstances, you are advised to consult an actual dogmatic council, or someone who actually holds the Faith whole and undefiled, and also actually get humbled before attempting any rescue procedures. By reading this document and the information we provide, you agree not to hold any heresies or whatnot, material or formal, or use the lousy excuse of obediences based on false premises.

Introduction

We've received nothing but grief and pain from friends and family members who can't stand us for knowing that they have fallen under the influence of the Post-Con SillyChurch. Many who recognize the dangers of the Post-Ciliar ConChurch say that we don't exaggerate if we call the Non-Conciliar PostChurch on a departure from Catholic doctrine and tradition. But everyone who knows that just about everyone has fallen under the influence of the Post Conciliar NeoChurch and agrees that the PostNeo ConChurch has a very a dangerous and unnatural control over their supporters. This level of control is often called "material heresy" by those who witness the departures of the ConPost NeoChurch.

Unfortunately, the Church Militant with good will often say the truth and live the Faith, and that only makes the situation worse.

Just kidding... just kidding!! geez, lighten up. Already.

More smears. Why don't you answer the argument I have presented to you directly instead of hiding behind the above posts which are either lies (ICEL's claim that "exegetes" believe the Aramaic word for "many" really means "all"--an unmitigated lie) or hit pieces? I have posited sound reasons for why people admire the SSPX. Its priests are devout, hard-working, orthodox, and serious about the faith. Besides, they want their kids to grow up as Catholics, not Protestants.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.